13 Responses to this entry

SVErshov Says:

“Conflicts of interest between principals and agents are one of the most significant forces acting on the structure of any kind of organisation.”

Indeed, it is very important question. I would part with management any time. Only organisations with greater structural innertia can survive. and management usually are those part of population who resist structural changes.

“Many popularized discussions of evolution suggest that selection processes invariably favoradaptableformsof life. Infact thetheory of evolution makes no suchclaim, as we made clear earlier (Hannan and Freeman, 1977; Freemanand Hannan, 1983).This papergoes beyond our earlier theory in acknowledging that organizationalchanges of some kinds occur frequentlyandthatorganizationssome- times even manageto makeradicalchangesin strategies and structures. Nevertheless, we argue that selection processes tend to favor organizationswhose structuresare difficultto change. That is, we claim that high levels of structuralinertiain organizationalpopulations can be explained as an outcome of an ecological-evolutionary process. In additionto derivingstructuralinertiaas a consequenceof a selectionprocess, this paper explores some of the details of inertialforces on organizationalstructure.It considers how inertialforces vary over the life cycle, with organizationalsize, and with complexity, and suggests some specific models for these de- pendencies.” Structural Inertia and Organizational Change Author(s): Michael T. Hannan and John Freeman 1984.

Joint-stock companies are almost eight centuries old now. Chances are, they’ll be around for eight centuries more. This is an aspect of reality that should be highlighted more often — what has stuck around tends to stick around. The delineation of such a principle is best kept simple since it is surprisingly general. The more ancient a structure is, the more filters it has passed through, the more robust it is. Nature abhors a vacuum, but it loves recycling.

The worst case scenario for a sovcorp shareholder is to end up on the wrong side of a cartel controlling majority interest in the sovcorp, because the sovcorp would miraculously stop turning a profit, leaving them with worthless paper.

At that point, the formal voting process gets effectively replaced with good old politics within the controlling cartel.

Thus every founding share would be a 50% chance lottery ticket affording entry into an eventual actual ruling coalition that runs on informal politics just as before. “Formalization” has an expected value of half of what everybody had before.

there is one exception for this scenario, when corporation created with one temporary goal to out put everything to shareholders and wanish. one such project was very successful in early bitcoins mining called ASICMINER. nothing formal behind it, no registedred company or anything. Just nic name on bitcointalk.org with solid reputation Friedcat. that was first ASIC mining crowdfunded project run by Chines student. He paid around 1.6 mln usd per week in dividents, when bitcoin cost was around usd20. once competion catched up that was time to exit. I paid 0.5-0.7 btc per share and exited with 3.6 btc per share.

The problem with neocameralism is that only some — many or most, but not all — democracies suffer from the malady diagnosed by public choice theory. Very good democracies, like Norway and New Zealand, feature politicians that listen to the people just barely enough to get elected, and then actually pursue optimal policy. Let’s say they are 10 percent afflicted.

Somewhere like the US is 40 percent, Brazil and India are 60 percent, and sub-Saharan African countries, where ethnic patronage is considered to be the normal way of doing politics, are near 100 percent of this kind of “democratic irrationality.”

The U.S. is probably increasing on this scale as it becomes more and more like Brazil. But what we need to consider is that countries that are theoretical at that 10 percent number wouldn’t benefit from implementing an absolute public choice-safe system like neocameralism, since big changes are costly.

Then why is Norway allowing in YUGE number of shitskins to rape their women? That is not OPTIMAL. Non-whites are not optimal. If you were rational you would be a white nationalist because white people are good for the economy. Imagine if we wiped out Mexico and replaced the population with whites. Mexican GDP would soar. You also forget that no other race has the capacity for science that whites have. The sheer amount scientific knowledge we have is what 98%-99.9% from whites. Face it, the elites are retarded too and make many terrible self serving decisions because many are insulated from their “subjects”. Killing the elites periodically I argue is a natural function of civilization. Cancer must be removed.

a question for the locals (excepting the fucking #hamburglar): could the model be extended to ‘cooperatives’ (locally), as a way of basically tricking progs into more realistically sustainable modes of association?